Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #526851

Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Sarah Ehrett, in <news:s2r72bparfh6es0vbn6pn5gc7dqb0eumpk@4ax.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:39:21 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
> <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:08:08 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>> 
>>> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
>>> woman-stalking truck crashing kook), in
>>> <news:IKGdne7nHNYNUr_LnZ2dnUU7-YfOydjZ@giganews.com> did thusly jump
>>> head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> Ob<SMACKAKOOK!>
>>>> 
>>>> Fact is jets at air shows in the United States will not fly faster than the 
>>>> speed of sound period.

>>> You've tried that lie before, RockyRetard, and you've been proven
>>> wrong. Why is your broken little brain so impervious to clue? You're
>>> dumber than Emmett Gulley. LOL

>> Wow.
>> I don't know if Roger is able to understand the level of that
>> insult.

It wasn't an insult. It was a statement of fact. I can qualifiedly
opine, having assessed both Emmett and Roger, that Roger Wittekind is
substantially less intelligent than Emmett Earl Gulley, Jr.

>> [Note to Roger: You have been completely and totally insulted. At a
>> level rarely seen in the halls of Usenet. To give you a rough idea as
>> to how deep this insult goes; at no time in our history have FNVW or I
>> felt the need or desire to compare the other to Emmett, let alone
>> claim either us dumber than Emmett. If you know anything of our past
>> before the truce, you will understand my meaning.]

> RockyRetard also shares stalking activities with Emutt.

Now that you mention it, that is true. Emmett is a serial stalker of
women, whereas Roger Wittekind stalked the same woman for more than 20
years. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which
type of stalking they find to be more creepy.

This is a topic which requires much more in-depth discussion and
discovery...

How many teeth does Roger have?

Does Roger enjoy eating Skittles?

What is the longest Roger has spent in jail?

Has Roger ever lived under a bridge?

Given that Roger is a dangerous driver, does he now ride a bike, and
has he ever crashed into the back of a septic tank cleaning truck?

You may have hit upon empirical evidence of something akin to:
Skittles = Stupid = Toofless = Stalker = Troofer

Or perhaps:
Stupid = Skittles = Toofless = Stalker = Troofer

If so, then it's a corroboration of my comparison of Roger Wittekind
to Emmett Gulley above, given that Roger is obviously further down
that road than Emmett. It also means we can expect Emmett to become a
9/11 TrooferTard when he finally gets out of jail.

<snicker>

-- 

Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394

Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.

Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.

For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.

B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".

C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).

D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.

E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL

F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL

G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL

H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.

I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.

J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a
"nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your
magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to
silence them.

K) Your broken brain has now stated (MID:
<YtWdnQvC1PTFNWjInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>) that "liquid freon in
the air conditioners helped to turn the nuke into a themo [sic]
nuclear bomb" (your words). Complete and utter nonsense from your
thoroughly broken schizophrenic brain, Roger.

L) In further expanding your delusion, your broken brain has k'lamed
that the reason for the WTC Memorial Lights is to cover up Cherenkov
radiation at the WTC site as a result of a nuclear detonation, kook
blather which I utterly destroy here: MID:
<1f304ece6ae3cd30c1bee10ad300b720@dizum.com> by proving that Cherenkov
radiation in air can only happen with highly energetic beta radiation;
that beta particles due to nuclear fission aren't energetic enough to
cause Cherenkov radiation in air; and that even with beta particles of
maximum possible energy, the Cherenkov radiation in air would only
extend ~2 meters above the ground. That's not taking into account that
the WTC Memorial Lights are currently at the *top* of the 7-story
Battery Parking Garage on Morris Street and are lit only once a year
on 11 Sep. Before the new Goldman Sachs building was built, the lights
were in vacant lot 26 on West Side Highway near the WTC site (on which
the new Goldman Sachs building now sits). They were *never* at the WTC
site. Moron. LOL

IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And
the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little
tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very
best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot
with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================

Moron. LOL

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-17 17:44 -0500
  Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-17 18:05 -0500
  Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-17 23:24 +0000
  Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 19:56 -0400
    Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:19 +1100
  Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-17 22:18 -0500
    Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 23:50 -0400
    Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-18 08:23 -0400
      Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-18 07:34 -0500
        Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-18 15:00 -0400
      Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-18 14:55 -0400
    Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-18 06:44 +0000
  Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-18 06:08 +0200
    Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 10:39 -0500
      Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-18 15:01 -0400
        Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 03:46 -0500
          Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-19 14:53 -0400
            Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 03:53 -0500
              Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-20 17:50 +0200
                Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 20:42 -0500
              Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-21 11:44 -0400
        Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-19 17:48 +0200
          Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 03:52 -0500
          Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-21 13:14 -0400
            Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-22 06:03 +0200
              Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-22 21:57 -0400
                Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-23 09:30 +0200
                Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-27 00:33 -0400
                Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-27 08:31 +0100
                Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-28 05:52 +0100
                Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-11-01 19:50 -0500
                Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-11-02 05:04 +0100
  Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 12:37 -0700
    Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "Notroll2015" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2015-10-18 15:58 -0500
      Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-18 19:00 -0400
    Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-18 16:35 -0500
      Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-18 19:03 -0400
        Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:32 -0700
  Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-19 14:53 -0400
  Re: Why there are no supersonic flights at airshows Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-19 14:54 -0400

csiph-web